U.S. EPA fines Chico, Calif. company $6,000 for oil spill prevention violations
Release date: 03/20/2008
Contact Information: Wendy Chavez, 415/947-4248, chavez.wendy@epa.gov
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently fined Warner Petroleum, Inc., $6,000 for oil spill prevention violations at its facility at 310 Nord Ave. in Chico, Calif.
During a routine inspection in April 2007, the EPA found that Warner Petroleum lacked secondary containment around its oil storage area needed to prevent oil from being discharged from the facility in the event of a tank or piping failure. Uncontained spills from the Warner Petroleum facility could potentially contaminate Big Chico Creek, which leads to the Sacramento River and eventually into the Pacific Ocean.
“It is critical that facilities such as Warner take the measures needed to prevent the release of oil into the environment,” said Keith Takata, the EPA’s Superfund Division director for the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “Discharges of oil into waterways can be prevented with proper planning and spill containment.”
The Warner Petroleum facility had incomplete secondary containment for four fixed above-ground storage containers, two 5,000 gallon portable storage containers, a 550-gallon waste oil tank, and a warehouse where approximately 80 55-gallon drums and 16 portable storage totes are located.
Oil spills and other contamination from onshore sources can pollute and harm ecosystems. The EPA requires oil storage facilities to have spill prevention plans and measures in place to prevent oil from being discharged into waterways. Warner Petroleum agreed to pay the penalty and has installed the necessary secondary containment within its facility.
For more information please visit http://www.epa.gov/oilspill
Friday, September 26, 2008
Shipley Grouped Fined for Poor SPCC Adherence
RedOrbit - Dallas,TX,USA
Posted on: Friday, 21 March 2008, 06:00 CDT
By Brent Burkey, York Daily Record, Pa.
Mar. 21–State officials and the Shipley Group have reached an agreement on fines and monitoring after a 1,500-gallon heating oil spill in York County and violations at six other facilities, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said.
The spill, according to a DEP news release, happened Jan. 18 at McCullough Oil Service in Springfield Township.
Shipley officials are looking at the site for “any environmental problems,” the statement said. About 1,500 gallons of fuel spilled, DEP said.
Sandy Roderick, spokeswoman for DEP, said a required containment basin was on site, but it was not working well enough to contain the spill. The state requires a basin be present at a fuel facility and be in good working order.
Between 900 and 1,000 gallons of fuel were recovered following the spill; the rest remains on the property, she said.
Roderick said most of the other violations were for Shipley not inspecting tanks and pipes or not inspecting tanks and pipes often enough.
According to the terms of the deal, Shipley will pay a $76,000 civil penalty and agree to strict monitoring of its fuel facilities.
In DEP’s release, the head of the agency’s southcentral office said she hopes the penalties will help bring Shipley in line with regulations.
Shipley operates 41 underground fuel sites and bulk fuel facilities in southcentral Pennsylvania. Violations occurred between October 2006 and January.
Roderick said DEP began investigating when Shipley’s
required paperwork did not show up in state records.
The state requires companies to get equipment inspected and to send results to DEP every year to every three years, depending on the inspection, Roderick said.
A representative from the Shipley Group did not return a phone call for comment Thursday afternoon. bburkey@ydr.com; 771-2035
Posted on: Friday, 21 March 2008, 06:00 CDT
By Brent Burkey, York Daily Record, Pa.
Mar. 21–State officials and the Shipley Group have reached an agreement on fines and monitoring after a 1,500-gallon heating oil spill in York County and violations at six other facilities, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said.
The spill, according to a DEP news release, happened Jan. 18 at McCullough Oil Service in Springfield Township.
Shipley officials are looking at the site for “any environmental problems,” the statement said. About 1,500 gallons of fuel spilled, DEP said.
Sandy Roderick, spokeswoman for DEP, said a required containment basin was on site, but it was not working well enough to contain the spill. The state requires a basin be present at a fuel facility and be in good working order.
Between 900 and 1,000 gallons of fuel were recovered following the spill; the rest remains on the property, she said.
Roderick said most of the other violations were for Shipley not inspecting tanks and pipes or not inspecting tanks and pipes often enough.
According to the terms of the deal, Shipley will pay a $76,000 civil penalty and agree to strict monitoring of its fuel facilities.
In DEP’s release, the head of the agency’s southcentral office said she hopes the penalties will help bring Shipley in line with regulations.
Shipley operates 41 underground fuel sites and bulk fuel facilities in southcentral Pennsylvania. Violations occurred between October 2006 and January.
Roderick said DEP began investigating when Shipley’s
required paperwork did not show up in state records.
The state requires companies to get equipment inspected and to send results to DEP every year to every three years, depending on the inspection, Roderick said.
A representative from the Shipley Group did not return a phone call for comment Thursday afternoon. bburkey@ydr.com; 771-2035
SPCC Success Story at Electric Substation
March 25, 2008
Petro-Pipe™, Petro-Plug® and Petro-Barrier™ have been installed in the United States, Canada and other foreign countries in Oil containment systems around transformers in substations, oil tanks, Oil valves, storm drains and many other applications over the last ten years.Solidification Products International’s patented products and systems allow for rain water to discharge passively continuously while only reacting with hydrocarbons in a spill scenario. All SPI products have been used in actual customer spills with no oil being released from any of the containment areas or drains. Spills to date have included over 200 gallons of Hot 150° #6 oil, 1000’s of gallons of cable oil, numerous transformer oil spills, Diesel fuel, and hydraulic oil just to name a few. In all spills the product immediately sealed when contacted with the spilled hydrocarbon, totally containing any liquids from discharging.
San Diego Gas & Electric a customer of SPI Petro-Pipe™ since 2003 has installed them in hundreds of applications, providing water discharge during the rainy season and oil containment if needed from small spills to major failures. No fire had ever accompanied a spill with the use of the products until a transformer in Escondido, California exploded and all of the oil was discharged into the surrounding containment area. One Petro-Pipe™ was installed in the concrete containment area to provide drainage and oil containment. When the explosion took place the majority of the oil spilled into the containment area while also being on fire. The fire raged for over three hours and exposed the Petro-Pipe™ to extreme temperatures even laboratory testing could not have reproduced. The fire department responded, applying both water and foam. The fire extinguished itself after consuming the remaining oil.
Bill Gannon of SPI was contacted by SDG&E and asked to come to the site to evaluate how the Petro-Pipe™ performed under these conditions. The Petro-Pipe™ used in this application is two parts, a flanged 7” Diameter housing made of PVC and the actual 6” flanged Petro-Pipe™ also made of PVC that slides into the housing and is attached with 5 stainless steel screws. The housing is cast into the 8” thick concrete wall and then the Petro-Pipe™ is inserted into the housing.Upon viewing the pictures of the melted flange inside the containment area it was difficult to determine if the Petro-Pipe™ withstood the severe conditions it was exposed to.
While on site Gannon removed the Petro-Pipe™ by driving the housing through the concrete containment wall with a sledge hammer. The Petro-Pipe™ was removed and the melted flange examined. It appeared to be fused together where the two flanges were joined with the screws. With SDG&E personnel present Gannon started to disassemble the melted Petro-Pipe™. Only the flange area had melted. The inside of the Petro-Pipe™ was intact. The next stage is the media that filters the water and stops the oil. The media was absorbed and solidified and it was removed from the inside of the Petro-Pipe™. The oil had penetrated about 3-4 inches into the media and formed a solid jell material that binds to the Petro-Pipe™ wall and prevents any more oil or water from escaping. Underneath the solidified layer was discolored unused media for the next 2 – 3 inches. The inner walls of the Petro-Pipe™ were oil free and no oil had escaped down past the solidified portion of the media.
SDG&E’s other concern was if any oil escaped the area between the housing and the Petro-Pipe™ through the flanges. This area was also checked for oil with none present. The concrete containment wall had insulated the Petro-Pipe™. Even excessive temperature of a prolonged fire did not compromise the integrity of the Petro-Pipe™. The Petro-Pipe performed as it was designed, not allowing any oil to escape the containment area despite extreme conditions.
For More Information Contact
William J. Gannon
Ph:203-484-9494
Fa: 203-484-9492
BGannon@OilBarriers.com
More Mobile Refueler SPCC Confusion
Important Information for Aerial Firefighters
Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008
A number of HAI members under contract to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) for aerial firefighting have expressed concern over new contractor environmental responsibilities and compliance with 40 CFR Part 112, oil pollution prevention, spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan requirements (SPCC).
New contract language requires an SPCC plan for each mobile fueler used on USFS and DOI contracts, regardless of bulk storage container (tank) size. HAI staff has been in contact with USFS and DOI officials at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) to discuss this matter. An Example SPCC Plan provided to NIFC personnel by the Idaho EPA inspector should be of assistance to HAI members who must comply with this requirement. All operators are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the example plan.
40 CFR Part 112 addresses fuel truck operators while the vehicle is stationary, and NIFC officials have acknowledged the need for operators to carry secondary containment when near a waterway if the fuel has potential to access the waterway. According to information provided to HAI, it is the vendor’s responsibility to judge whether or not the fuel could reach the waterway. NIFC has indicated to HAI that every effort will be made in the field to reduce that possibility. However, when this is not possible, secondary containment may be necessary. If operators are performing aerial firefighting under government contract, a helicopter manager will be ordered and it is anticipated that local officials will provide assistance with the deployment of the containment system.
Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008
A number of HAI members under contract to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) for aerial firefighting have expressed concern over new contractor environmental responsibilities and compliance with 40 CFR Part 112, oil pollution prevention, spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan requirements (SPCC).
New contract language requires an SPCC plan for each mobile fueler used on USFS and DOI contracts, regardless of bulk storage container (tank) size. HAI staff has been in contact with USFS and DOI officials at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) to discuss this matter. An Example SPCC Plan provided to NIFC personnel by the Idaho EPA inspector should be of assistance to HAI members who must comply with this requirement. All operators are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the example plan.
40 CFR Part 112 addresses fuel truck operators while the vehicle is stationary, and NIFC officials have acknowledged the need for operators to carry secondary containment when near a waterway if the fuel has potential to access the waterway. According to information provided to HAI, it is the vendor’s responsibility to judge whether or not the fuel could reach the waterway. NIFC has indicated to HAI that every effort will be made in the field to reduce that possibility. However, when this is not possible, secondary containment may be necessary. If operators are performing aerial firefighting under government contract, a helicopter manager will be ordered and it is anticipated that local officials will provide assistance with the deployment of the containment system.
Questions about SPCC and Mobile Refuelers
Questions about SPCC and Mobile Refuelers
Sized Secondary Containment for Mobile Refuelers
Article by: Lee Hill
March 20, 2008 Industry continues to ask what the SPCC requirements are for mobile refuelers. Many believe that amendments to 40 CFR last year completely exempted mobile refuelers from all SPCC requirements. This is not true.
It is true that the sized secondary requirements were removed for mobile refuelers. However, the general regulations in 112.7(c) of 40 CFR still apply to mobile refuelers at SPCC regulated facilities.
A section taken directly from the EPA’s website should help to clarify. I have reposted it here:
“General secondary containment should be designed to address the most likely discharge from the container and from oil transfers into or from the mobile refueler. The general secondary containment requirements:
Do not prescribe a size for a secondary containment structure but require that the containment system prevent the spilled oil from escaping the system prior to clean up occurring
Require appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
Allow for the use of certain types of active containment measures that prevent a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines”
As you can see, the property owner is still responsible for containing the spill. Many see this regulation as nebulous at best and open to wide interpretations. Conservative facilities are finding that it is easier to proceed forward with sized containment because the EPA also states that refuelers that are unmanned for periods of time would be considered an above ground storage tank (AST). This statement brings the sized containment regulations back into play.
Why were these amendments proposed? The answer is simple, the Airport Industry lobbied Congress to get an exemption. Pressure was applied to the EPA and the sized restriction requiring spill berms was removed. What the industry does not fully realize is that in the event of a spill, the EPA has the authority via the general requirements to fine, hence the nebulous nature of the regulations.
The question asked is do you roll the dice and hope against the inevitable or do you consider taking a best management practices approach and protect your site against a catastrophic spill event. The answer is that it comes down to economics. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It simply is not worth the negative impact to not prepare in advance.
In addition to this argument, it is often the case that the mobile refueler is engaged with loading racks. During this transfer process the sized containment regulations are enforced. Most sites deem it feasible to design their facility for sized containment at the loading racks and leave their mobile refuelers parked in that secondary containment area when not in use. When in use, spill kits are kept handily on board the vehicle as part of an active containment requirement.For more details on the rulings concerning mobile refuelers visit: http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/spcc/factsheet_mobile_refuelers_dec06.htm
For more information on secondary containment contact Basic Concepts, Inc, 1310 Harris Bridge Rd, Anderson, SC 29621, telephone 1-800-285-4203 or visit the company website at www.basicconcepts.com
SPCC Violation Fine for Martha's Vineyard Oil Company
Martha’s Vineyard Oil Company Pays Penalty to Settle Clean Water …
Release date: 02/20/2008 U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Feb. 20, 2008) - A Vineyard Haven, Mass. petroleum storage and distribution company has agreed to pay a $78,000 fine for violating the federal Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
RM Packer Inc. failed to adequately implement a “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure” (SPCC) plan and did not sufficiently maintain proper containment for its tanks and loading rack. Upgrades required by the facility’s SPCC plan had not been implemented, including installing high level alarms and level monitors on tanks, installing secondary tank bottoms with corrosion protection, and testing tanks for soundness. Because the facility is located directly across from Vineyard Sound Harbor, these violations presented a significant threat of an oil spill into navigable water.
Following the original EPA inspection, the company submitted a schedule for coming into compliance, including upgrading its tanks and containment areas. When RM Packer fell behind schedule, EPA sent a letter to the company notifying the company that its oil tanks on Beach Road were still out of compliance with the SPCC regulations. Due to the company’s continued noncompliance, EPA subsequently issued an Administrative Order to RM Packer, requiring the company to comply with the storage tank requirements of the SPCC rule. Following continued delays to comply with the SPCC requirements, EPA initiated the current penalty action against the company.
Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into drinking water wells, rivers or streams.
“Oil spills can do significant damage to the environment,” said Robert W. Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills.”
RM Packer has agreed to upgrade its facility and comply with the SPCC regulations. The company has poured concrete in the previously unpaved tank containment area, upgraded containment for other, smaller tanks, and installed high level alarms and corrosion protection for the active tanks. In addition, RM Packer is working with an engineer to update its SPCC plan.
EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. In 2007, EPA conducted inspections at over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
More information:
- Federal oil spill prevention requirements (epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc)
- Oil Spill prevention in New England (epa.gov/region1/superfund/er/oilstor.htm)
Release date: 02/20/2008 U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Feb. 20, 2008) - A Vineyard Haven, Mass. petroleum storage and distribution company has agreed to pay a $78,000 fine for violating the federal Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
RM Packer Inc. failed to adequately implement a “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure” (SPCC) plan and did not sufficiently maintain proper containment for its tanks and loading rack. Upgrades required by the facility’s SPCC plan had not been implemented, including installing high level alarms and level monitors on tanks, installing secondary tank bottoms with corrosion protection, and testing tanks for soundness. Because the facility is located directly across from Vineyard Sound Harbor, these violations presented a significant threat of an oil spill into navigable water.
Following the original EPA inspection, the company submitted a schedule for coming into compliance, including upgrading its tanks and containment areas. When RM Packer fell behind schedule, EPA sent a letter to the company notifying the company that its oil tanks on Beach Road were still out of compliance with the SPCC regulations. Due to the company’s continued noncompliance, EPA subsequently issued an Administrative Order to RM Packer, requiring the company to comply with the storage tank requirements of the SPCC rule. Following continued delays to comply with the SPCC requirements, EPA initiated the current penalty action against the company.
Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into drinking water wells, rivers or streams.
“Oil spills can do significant damage to the environment,” said Robert W. Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills.”
RM Packer has agreed to upgrade its facility and comply with the SPCC regulations. The company has poured concrete in the previously unpaved tank containment area, upgraded containment for other, smaller tanks, and installed high level alarms and corrosion protection for the active tanks. In addition, RM Packer is working with an engineer to update its SPCC plan.
EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. In 2007, EPA conducted inspections at over 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
More information:
- Federal oil spill prevention requirements (epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc)
- Oil Spill prevention in New England (epa.gov/region1/superfund/er/oilstor.htm)
SPCC Violation Results in Fine - Boston, MA
Oil Spill Preparedness Project Eases Clean Water Act Penalty Paid …
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 02/06/2008
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Feb. 6, 2008) - Fred’s Plumbing & Heating, Inc., a petroleum storage and distribution facility in Derby, Vt., will pay $21,250 in penalties and provide $14,000 for local oil spill equipment and response training following Clean Water Act Violations discovered by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC).
On February 27, 2007, approximately 5,000 gallons of gasoline was released from an above ground 25,000 gallon double-compartment storage tank at the company’s plant located on Route 5 in Derby. VTDEC emergency responders observed that gasoline had flowed beyond the containment surrounding the tank and had contaminated soil and ground water on the property. Since then, VTDEC has continued to oversee cleanup activities, including monitoring a nearby stream and a neighboring drinking water well.
EPA determined that the company violated the Clean Water Act by failing to have an adequate “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure” (SPCC) plan in place at its facility, as required by Oil Pollution Prevention requirements. Facilities storing oil above specific amounts are required to take certain measures to ensure that a tank failure or accidental spill does not lead to oil contamination of surface waters, such as rivers or streams, which could harm human and ecological health.
Both EPA and VTDEC found upon inspection of the Derby facility that in addition to failing to fully implement an adequate SPCC plan, the company failed to construct sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil storage containers, loading rack, and other fuel transfer areas.
“Oil spills can severely impact the environment, including surface waters and drinking water supplies,” said Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator of EPA’s New England office. “EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills.”
The penalties to resolve this Clean Water violation were lessened by the company’s willingness to fund a “Supplemental Environmental Project,” under which $14,000 will go to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (“LEPC”) District #10, to boost local oil spill response capabilities. These funds will help the LEPC provide up-to-date oil spill training techniques and equipment for local responders. FP&H has been responsive to EPA’s inspection and has agreed to comply with the SPCC regulations and update its SPCC plan.
For more information:
New England oil spill prevention (epa.gov/region1/superfund/oilstor.htm)
National oil spill prevention www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/index.htm
No Comments yet...
Posted in Links to News on Oil Spills | Tags: Secondary Containment, SPCC
U.S. EPA.gov (press release) - Washington,DC,USA
Release date: 02/06/2008
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
(Boston, Mass. – Feb. 6, 2008) - Fred’s Plumbing & Heating, Inc., a petroleum storage and distribution facility in Derby, Vt., will pay $21,250 in penalties and provide $14,000 for local oil spill equipment and response training following Clean Water Act Violations discovered by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC).
On February 27, 2007, approximately 5,000 gallons of gasoline was released from an above ground 25,000 gallon double-compartment storage tank at the company’s plant located on Route 5 in Derby. VTDEC emergency responders observed that gasoline had flowed beyond the containment surrounding the tank and had contaminated soil and ground water on the property. Since then, VTDEC has continued to oversee cleanup activities, including monitoring a nearby stream and a neighboring drinking water well.
EPA determined that the company violated the Clean Water Act by failing to have an adequate “Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure” (SPCC) plan in place at its facility, as required by Oil Pollution Prevention requirements. Facilities storing oil above specific amounts are required to take certain measures to ensure that a tank failure or accidental spill does not lead to oil contamination of surface waters, such as rivers or streams, which could harm human and ecological health.
Both EPA and VTDEC found upon inspection of the Derby facility that in addition to failing to fully implement an adequate SPCC plan, the company failed to construct sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil storage containers, loading rack, and other fuel transfer areas.
“Oil spills can severely impact the environment, including surface waters and drinking water supplies,” said Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator of EPA’s New England office. “EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risks of oil spills.”
The penalties to resolve this Clean Water violation were lessened by the company’s willingness to fund a “Supplemental Environmental Project,” under which $14,000 will go to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (“LEPC”) District #10, to boost local oil spill response capabilities. These funds will help the LEPC provide up-to-date oil spill training techniques and equipment for local responders. FP&H has been responsive to EPA’s inspection and has agreed to comply with the SPCC regulations and update its SPCC plan.
For more information:
New England oil spill prevention (epa.gov/region1/superfund/oilstor.htm)
National oil spill prevention www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/index.htm
No Comments yet...
Posted in Links to News on Oil Spills | Tags: Secondary Containment, SPCC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)